Big Board Chess

By Prof. Alfred Schönfelder

Big Board Chess (BBChess) is played on a 10 by 10 board with 25 conventional pieces for each player. During an inital setup phase the players put their pieces alternately on the empty board. The rules for the following moving phase are only slightly different from conventional chess. Pawns is given more power.

Big Board Chess (in German: Großfeldschach) was invented in 1974 by Prof. Alfred Schönfelder in Leipzig, Germany. It offers the keen and enterprising player with fighting spirit the possibility to chose his own individual and most favorable setup and plentiful excellent combinations.

Rules

The game starts with an empty board. Both players begin to put their pieces alternately and in a free sequence on empty squares according to the following rules:

Setting is allowed only within the own half of the board i. e. row 1 to 5 for white and row 6 to 10 for black.

Pawns of same color must be placed on separate lines. Double Pawns, treble Pawns (and so on) are not allowed. Setting a white Pawn on the first row or a black one on the last row is not forbidden but it is not recommended.

Each player has to distribute his 4 Bishops on 2 white and 2 black squares.

At the end of the setup the black king must not be "in check".

During the setup phase moving of the pieces is not allowed. When all pieces are set they have to be moved according to the conventional chess rules modified as follows:

Pawns are always allowed to move either one or two steps forward and not only for the first move.

En passant capture is possible in every applicable situation according to the well known rule.

Casteling is not possible.

Playing tips

Set the Pawns first and let them often shield each other. Set the King late.

Comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbles;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700924.html.
Of CVs with a set-up phase, this Big Board, rather than Unachess,
http://www.chessvariants.org/diffsetup.dir/unachess.html, has been elevated at Next Chess project threads, where B.B. is currently #6. The most proficient designer at bringing others' core idea to perfection has to be Duniho, and he does so for Big Board in the comment, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24670. Both Unachess and Gilman's recent comment for a proposed Shogi variant, Karagi, allow moving pieces before full deployment. Adding the factor of both options at once is a worsening because the science of deployment deserves separate treatment. If player can move a piece instead of continue deploying until it runs the course, think how unaesthetic in actual play are repeat back-to-back moves of the same piece more than twice, such as King, during peculiar combined phases permitting either movement or placement. There could be just a few pieces on the board, and move of King three times in a row, then followed by the further set-up deployment towards full complement of the 32 or 40 (Shogi) or 50 Big Board pieces. It is just an ugly scenario. Also, one player may still be in the placement phase of the original pieces, long since completed by the other player. As usual, Gilman is right though that that would be relatively modest or less extreme in the Japanese regional variant Shogi, since the very bizarre particular form of Chess has ongoing drops already, and they amount to continual deployment and re-deployment; so may as well extend them ad absurdum. ( Or, by analogy, like player's marbles re-deployed as own after being knocked out of the chalk circle on concrete with the deft flick of her/his thumb. And aren't most, though not all, variants of Marbles initially really undeployed, unlike the linked championship here? Or, what are the full set of marbles?
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700924.html.
And which of Neto's Chess and Physics, http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/physics.html, subvariants would be better played with Marbles than with Chess Pieces? ''If you shoot a marble, how much entropy...?''
And on losing your marbles, there was the announcement:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=18935.)

Jose, your proposal puts added restrictions on the order in which pieces may be placed, while mine and George's just speed up the setup without restricting the order in which pieces may be placed. Your proposal also deprives the setup phase of some of its strategic and tactical possibilities, which was part of the appeal of the original game.

Although I considered expediting Big Board Chess by allowing five drops per turn for the setup, that wasn't exactly what I proposed. My proposal, which I shall call Expedited Big Board Chess, takes seven turns for the setup. It begins with five drops per turn for the first three turns, then drops to four drops for the fourth turn, three for the fifth turn, two for the sixth turn, and one for the seventh turn. Although slightly longer, it isn't onerously so, and it has the advantage of allowing more strategic and tactical decision making in the setup phase. It also parallels the piece distribution, allowing players, if they choose, to set up the Pawns on the first two turns, the Knights on the third, the Bishops on the fourth, the Rooks on the third, the Queens on the second, and the King on the seventh.

Garth,
The problem is that the setup is too tedious. It is just not that playable practically -- and is actually more unlike chess that a chess with exotic pieces.
There is only one exotic piece in my proposed variant -- we can even do without it some prefer it that way.
Necessitating Openings seems to be a good thing - why get rid of openings?
My version provides both a setup and an opening phase which seems more desirable.
There is enough variety in the setup to ensure that deep opening theory CANNOT be memorized (by humans).
In fact, in addition to bishops on opposite colored squares I can even place restrictions on where the bishops can be placed and 2 other rooks can be placed. Perhaps like balancing them on each wing. This to reduce the number of possible positions but lead to more balanced setups.
Computers can be programmed to do quite well in Big Board chess as it stands -- so defeating computers cannot be the goal in designing this or most chess variants.
Usually, I would submit this idea as a brand new variant, but I don't have the desire to make new variants anymore. If anyone is interested in developing a game from my proposition feel free to do so.